How to investigate Kamala Harris without repeating the mistakes of 2016
The key is to keep the coverage in proportion and hold Trump to the same standards
No matter how badly Donald Trump fails to meet even the most rudimentary standards for a presidential candidate, it is essential that journalists thoroughly vet Kamala Harris.
The key, however, is to keep it in proportion and not make the same mistake the media made in 2016, obsessing over a minor Hillary Clinton scandal at the expense of focusing on Trump’s chronic perfidy. I have two suggestions for how to do that.
But first, let’s be clear: Like it or not, journalists covering the newly-transformed presidential race have an obligation to meticulously explore Harris’s views – and expose her flubs and flaws.
That’s because no candidate for president should be allowed to avoid the scrutiny of the media, no matter how much of a danger to democracy and freedom their opponent represents. No candidate should be immune from criticism. No candidate should be allowed to take office without the public knowing exactly what they care about, who they listen to, and who they would empower.
Journalists need to investigate Harris to learn more about how she would lead, and to begin the process of holding her accountable if she wins.
But how do journalists do that – and dig up the inevitable controversies and contradictions -- without falsely equating her flaws with those of Donald Trump?
One way is to produce at least as many stories about Trump’s failings. That shouldn’t be hard, since those failings are incredibly numerous, and many of them appear to have been forgotten by the general public.
But I have another idea, too: In every story describing an arguable failure or shortcoming by Harris, journalists should devote at least a few paragraphs to applying the same standard to Trump.
The benefit of this approach is twofold. It would force reporters to explain in simple terms precisely what behavior on Harris’s part they are suggesting falls short of what standard – rather than publishing "gotchas" out of context, or just stringing together a bunch of nasty quotes. And then it would force them to address how Trump’s conduct stacks up.
For instance, if they’re writing about how Harris has fallen short as a manager, then they should note Trump’s long history of disastrous management, starting with his response to Covid and extending to his hiring of corrupt, incompetent and immoral people and the fact that a striking number of his former aides have announced they don’t support him.
If they’re writing about Harris having failed to sufficiently prosecute rogue banks as attorney general, then they should spend some time describing Trump’s relationship to finance – for instance, how he is beholden to the banks that have loaned him money, and that as president he rolled back critical regulations that had been implemented to protect taxpayers in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
If journalists write about how Harris falls short of Democratic expectations about holding corporate power accountable, it’s essential that they also remind the public that Trump would let corporations run roughshod over regulations, and would enable a kleptocracy.
If they’re writing about Harris’s mixed record in her mission to stem immigration, they should also take note of Trump’s views and proposed solutions, which are racist, bellicose and wildly impractical.
And if they’re writing about Harris’s pro-Israel take on Gaza or her statements against anti-Israel protests – both of them highly controversial, especially among progressives – they should put them in the context of Trump’s incredibly hardline views on Israel and his desire to stomp out protest.
Harris may be flawed. No, Harris most certainly is flawed. And journalists should be making that very clear. But the magnitude of her flaws is trivial compared to Trump’s, and journalists should be making that clear, too.
The investigative stories are surely already in the works. They are coming. And when they come, readers and viewers should not jump to conclusions about the motives of those reporters. They are not “in the tank” for Trump. They are doing their jobs.
But there are ways for them to do their job more responsibly than they have in the past. And that’s something to keep an eye on.
Should Trump be held to the same standards? Of course! Will Trump be held to the same standards? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Trump's unfitness is baked in for the elite political press. No outrageous comment, no toxic policy position, no insult, no lie rises to a level as to bear investigation or reporting anymore for them. And when someone suggests that Trump might be lying about something that really matters - the non-bullet wound for example - the threats from the campaign and the MAGA horde reach epic proportions and the story is killed. So bottom line, it's only a matter of time until the NYT finds something with Kamala they can hype like Biden's age or Hillary's emails. And even less time until they assemble a group of old white men wearing red hats in an Ohio diner to talk about how they will never support a DEI candidate.
You offer a most excellent suggestion, but it fails to take into account the fact that generations of journalists have come of age since the FCC abolished the "fairness doctrine". The concept of "fair and balanced" works as an advertising slogan, but the concept is so 20th Century.